Scientific 'proof' ? (For Total Skeptics)

[Guest DWA]

But is the PGF film really a hoax if most, if not all, of the American public already believes it is a fake?

 

It's a hoax if it's a hoax.

 

We don't know what the public's thoughts are about it.

 

But if the facts are analyzed, no one knows what it is.  People may believe something, but belief without evidence is just that.

 

There is no payday anywhere awaiting anybody such as awaits the person who shows that P/G either was his work, or could have been done in 1967.

 

Nada.  46 years now, and nada.

 

Oh, it's the granddaddy of 'em all.

 

if it is.

 

Then there's pickles.  Don't account for pickles, we can't take you seriously.

 

And Cap'n Crunch.  Pancakes, that too.

 

Sorry.

Uh excuse me.....peanutbutter

 

Count Chocula, and evidence = proof! nannabooboo!

[Guest wudewasa]

Cotter, exactly.  Present a body of a bigfoot, and the fun will ensue.

[WSA]

But is the PGF film really a hoax if most, if not all, of the American public already believes it is a fake?

 

In other words, ask Joe Blow, who has only a faint interest in bigfoot, and he will say, that film was fake, right?

 

so has the hoax really fooled anyone in this case?

True that this is probably the opinion of those who have no braoder base of knowledge about it...but does that rule it out as a possible hoax? I'd say it doesn't any more than believing it is not a hoax makes it true. You must have original act + exposure as a hoax to qualify, I say. We don't have exposure here, we've just got opinions.

So, as I said, this is the Mack-Daddy of all hoaxes, if it is. Class unto itself in the history of the world. Is this a worthwhile point of view to help verify/not the PGF? I say yes.

[dmaker]

 

It's real, no it's not, yes it is, no it's not prove it, I did, no you didn't, yes I did, you did not, I just SAID you didn't but YOU said I did when I didn't say I did, if you say I did when I didn't then I'm gonna report you POOPY HEAD!

 

I agree, but then you still haven't addressed the dermal ridge vs. casting artificact controversy, nor the great ape hypothesis, nor the timing of the alleged Giganto migration.  Sloppy, that.

 

And completely stepped around the whole evidence vs proof....sheeesh!

[Guest DWA]

But is the PGF film really a hoax if most, if not all, of the American public already believes it is a fake?

In other words, ask Joe Blow, who has only a faint interest in bigfoot, and he will say, that film was fake,?right

so has the hoax really fooled anyone in this case?

anyone who doesn't know about the radio hoax will just go, wha? Was he fooled?

"Faint interest" doesn't work here. The spheres of dedicated interest are at issue. Most of the public heard it's fake, and accept it without examination. They don't count (as they didn't for Piltdown). P/G has fooled people with utterly relevant chops, striving to the limit to discern what it is.

If that is it's foolin.'

Does that count toward authenticity?

Yep.

[Guest LarryP]

I don't have much to say about the PGF. I am usually quite silent on the topic. When I look at it, it looks like a person in a costume. That's just my gut reaction to it. That is how my brain forms my perception of it. I know you will dismiss that perception and that is fine. There others like Mulder or Sweaty who will think me crazy or deluded for perceiving that as a person in a costume

 

 

 

No mention of Bill Munns extensive work regarding the PGF.

 

Why is that?

[Guest DWA]

But is the PGF film really a hoax if most, if not all, of the American public already believes it is a fake?

 

In other words, ask Joe Blow, who has only a faint interest in bigfoot, and he will say, that film was fake, right?

 

so has the hoax really fooled anyone in this case?

 

 

 

I don't have much to say about the PGF. I am usually quite silent on the topic. When I look at it, it looks like a person in a costume. That's just my gut reaction to it. That is how my brain forms my perception of it. I know you will dismiss that perception and that is fine. There others like Mulder or Sweaty who will think me crazy or deluded for perceiving that as a person in a costume

 

 

 

No mention of Bill Munns extensive work regarding the PGF.

 

Why is that?

 

 

...and of course much more could be said about this, so allow me.

 

Munns is only one of many exhibits the defense could call in making the case that P/G might just be authentic.  He is thoroughly versed in all aspects of the suit trade, and there may be no one more qualified to say what would actually have to be involved to put a very convincing-looking guy in a suit in front of P and G.  (Hint:  P and G would have seen a lot of people, lights, and trailers on their little ride.)  There are many others.  A standard-issue, gets-YouTube-laughs ape suit would have been quite difficult enough.  Read what Munns says would have to have been done to put in front of two experienced backwoodsmen a critter that gave them and their horses the serious fantods.  It's just not looking too likely.

 

Again, most people don't have the foggiest about this.  They watch it once (I giggled the first time I saw it); hear somebody say that was proven fake; and they're done.  If you don't even pay attention to it, there's no way to say you either were or weren't taken in.  You just didn't care.  We're talking here about the people who have analyzed it to an utter fare-thee-well, who know it better than the Secretary knows the Treasury.  If those people - and 3.5 million years of evolution as a hunter, which has branded "human" and "non-human" search images into our DNA - were taken in, you have a hoax compared to which none other even measures up to walk-in-the-park.

 

Faking a dollar bill, or a painting, or a concert ticket - or a radio broadcast - are not creating an animal from scratch that fools scientists.  If a person did it, a person can imitate it.  This anonymous (after 45 years!) hoaxer is imitating God.

 

My overall review of all the sasquatch evidence tells me that if I had to bet, I'd put everything on P/G being real.  Any other call shows an utter lack of the homework a gambler has to do to win.  In other words:  evidence coming in from all quarters, across the continent, from the time of earliest European settlement, and actually well before that - sightings; vocalizations; trackways; the experiences of thousands of people - squares with what is on this film.  The videos on YouTube couldn't be more galaxies away than they are.  People have seen animals, and heard calls, in compelling conjunction with tracks just like the ones Patty left.  When they describe what they saw, it's either Patty, or a different individual of either hers or a closely-related species.

 

If a faker did that?  And eliminated all traces of artifice?  All the great forgers of history become also-rans.

 

And no one knows this better than the trained minds that have reviewed this film and pronounced it genuine.

[dmaker]

^^ Not sure the point of your question Larry. I didn't mention Bill Munns because I haven't read any of his thread comments or his report. I have no interest in the PGF. It simply does not engage me. When I look at it I see a person in a costume. I don't need Sweatys crayon circles or Bills report or anything else. I'm not interested. I am not compelled by it, so I am not interested in spending any further time on it. I trust my instincts and my perception on this one.

I am not obligated to read or watch one iota of Bill Munns material. Why would I be? I am very careful to not speak from a position of authority on the PGF and always say this is my opinion of it based on my perception. I have no interest in looking further. That is not a crime, nor does it require a challenge from you. That is why I avoid lengthy PGF discussions. Leave that to the people that care about it.

I have difficulty imagining that Bill Munns is the single most qualified person on the planet to study and comment on the PGF suit or no suit, DWA. Hollywood has quite a few talented SFX folks working there, the problem is none of them give a crap about Bigfoot or the PGF, so Munns is your champion because he is the only one you have.

And before you ask Larry, no I have not went door to door in Hollywood conducting a census on special effects experts and their relevant interest in Bigfoot.

Edited May 16, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

I don't have to worry about the opinion of anyone who refuses to engage intellectually.

 

No Hollywood poobah who has priorly spoken on this topic shows an iota of relevant knowledge, a sure sign that they just didn't bother.

 

And you're one of the ones I'd put in the category "doesn't care; so it isn't relevant what he thinks of it."

Oh.  Forgot.  Some Hollywood poobahs do have worthwhile opinions on P/G.  They are, of course, the ones who think it's authentic.

 

"he's the only one you have" is weak sauce.  Falling back on uninformed consensus is a recurring trope in the history of science.  It's always shown wrong.

Edited May 16, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

^^ You are right about one thing, I don't care about the PGF.

[Guest DWA]

Well, I definitely don't get involved in all the .gif .gaf .goff stuff you see on here, with constantly oscillating movies of Patty's toe lift and muscle bulge and tummy tuck and look-zipper-no-it-ain't.

 

I will occasionally drop in on such threads to chuckle - often chuckling off a post or two - and then move on.

 

But I'm settled on P/G.  It's the single most compelling piece of evidence.  And won't mean a thing until we have proof.

[Guest wudewasa]

An interesting quote that is presented out of religious context-

 

[Guest DWA]

And that is why I accept nothing without evidence tantamount to proof.

[Rockape]

^^ Not sure the point of your question Larry. I didn't mention Bill Munns because I haven't read any of his thread comments or his report. I have no interest in the PGF. It simply does not engage me. When I look at it I see a person in a costume. I don't need Sweatys crayon circles or Bills report or anything else. I'm not interested. I am not compelled by it, so I am not interested in spending any further time on it. I trust my instincts and my perception on this one.

I am not obligated to read or watch one iota of Bill Munns material. Why would I be? I am very careful to not speak from a position of authority on the PGF and always say this is my opinion of it based on my perception. I have no interest in looking further. That is not a crime, nor does it require a challenge from you. That is why I avoid lengthy PGF discussions. Leave that to the people that care about it.

I have difficulty imagining that Bill Munns is the single most qualified person on the planet to study and comment on the PGF suit or no suit, DWA. Hollywood has quite a few talented SFX folks working there, the problem is none of them give a crap about Bigfoot or the PGF, so Munns is your champion because he is the only one you have.

And before you ask Larry, no I have not went door to door in Hollywood conducting a census on special effects experts and their relevant interest in Bigfoot.

 

 

The thing about Bill Munns is, he didn't get involved with the PGF as a believer who was looking to prove it is real, he came in with a healthy skepiticism but not a closed mind, just an effort to evaluate the film.

 

He will call it like it is but so far he hasn't found anything to show it is fake, but generally the opposite, that it is the real thing, and no one can refute his rigid examination of the film nor his methods for obtaining them. He also doesn't say he has proven it is real, but that the evidence is pointing that way.

 

And as for your opinion that when you look at the PGF you see a guy in a suit, I too could easily dismiss it as such if not for two things, analysis doesn't lend to that theory, I find it hard to believe a cowboy low on cash could make a suit that would continue to defy efforts to say it is a suit, and also beat the pants off anything Hollywood with all it's money and best special effects artists could do.

 

All that said, I'm not one to say the PGF is undeniably real, a true film of a Squatch, but that all I have learned about it seems to indicate it is the real thing. My jury is still out on it though.

[Guest LarryP]

 

I didn't mention Bill Munns because I haven't read any of his thread comments or his report. I have no interest in the PGF. It simply does not engage me. When I look at it I see a person in a costume. I don't need Sweatys crayon circles or Bills report or anything else. I'm not interested. I am not compelled by it, so I am not interested in spending any further time on it. I trust my instincts and my perception on this one.
 

 

 

 

That attititude is very reminiscent of a child putting his hands over his ears and humming very loudly while his Mom lectures him for not cleaning his room.

 

As opposed to someone who claims to be a "doubtful skeptic" who is willing to examine all of the evidence thoroughly.

 

I have difficulty imagining that Bill Munns is the single most qualified person on the planet to study and comment on the PGF suit or no suit, DWA. Hollywood has quite a few talented SFX folks working there, the problem is none of them give a crap about Bigfoot or the PGF, so Munns is your champion because he is the only one you have.

 

 

 

For someone who claims not to have watched "one iota" of Bill Munns material you certainly seem to know a lot about his material. And you seem to know a lot about what other SFX people in Hollywood are not intersted in, like BF.

 

But, you're wrong.......again.

Edited May 16, 2013 by LarryP